Critiquing: How Will Jesus Sit at the Right Hand of God if He Is God?

April 29, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Logical Coherence — Cognitive Biases — Fallacies — Unsubstantiated Claims — Testing Promises

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content regarding the theological discussion on the relationship between Jesus and God, as presented in the STR podcast. The focus is on identifying logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, providing a thorough critique from a neutral standpoint.

Logical Coherence

The content presents several arguments related to the concept of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God and the divine nature of Jesus. Here are the key points of critique:

1. Ambiguity in Definitions

The content frequently shifts definitions without clear delineation. For instance:

“The word God, when used in Scripture, is almost always referring to the Father.”

This statement introduces ambiguity by not consistently defining the term “God” throughout the discussion, leading to potential confusion.

2. Contradictory Assertions

The content asserts:

“It is only the doctrine of the Trinity… that subsists in three individual hypostasis… then you have one being with three persons, and you have all of these texts then fall right into place.”

This claim attempts to resolve contradictions by introducing a complex doctrine but does not adequately address how this doctrine logically unifies the seemingly disparate roles and identities within the concept of God.

3. Overgeneralization

The speaker states:

“The earliest characterization, the most primitive characterization about Jesus, the confession about Jesus is that Jesus is Lord.”

This overgeneralization does not account for the diversity of early Christian beliefs and interpretations, which varied significantly across different communities and texts.

Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases are evident in the content:

1. Confirmation Bias

The content shows confirmation bias by selectively referencing scripture that supports its arguments while ignoring those that might support opposing viewpoints. For example:

“You see the distinction there, so there’s no confusion between the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father.”

This selective referencing indicates a preference for information that confirms the speaker’s existing beliefs.

2. Straw Man Fallacy

The content misrepresents alternative theological perspectives by oversimplifying them. For instance:

“For those groups who say, well, there are three gods, that would be Mormons, or say that there’s only one God and only one person, center of consciousness that’s characterized in three different ways… those run smack dab into serious conflicts with other clear scriptures.”

This oversimplification creates a straw man, making it easier to attack these perspectives without addressing their actual complexity.

Unsubstantiated Claims

The content makes several claims that lack sufficient evidence:

1. Historical Assertions

The speaker asserts:

“We don’t have a lot of reference to Trinity, certainly, in the Hebrew Scriptures, because there was no need to reveal that at the time.”

This claim lacks historical substantiation and does not engage with the broader scholarly debate on the development of Trinitarian doctrine.

2. Theological Interpretations

The claim:

“The Trinity is a solution, not a problem.”

is presented without adequate explanation or engagement with counterarguments, making it an unsubstantiated theological interpretation.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content discusses theological concepts and divine roles but does not propose methods to empirically test any alleged promises. From a neutral standpoint, any alleged promises or theological assertions should be subjected to empirical scrutiny where possible. For example, claims about divine intercession or the transformative power of faith should be measurable and testable to confirm their validity.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

The content asserts that beliefs should be mapped to the degree of available evidence. This principle is crucial for logical coherence and intellectual honesty. As the speaker emphasizes:

“If you are to make sense of all the passages that refer to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, in particular, and to God in general.”

This underscores the importance of aligning one’s degree of belief with the strength of the evidence available. Claims about divine nature or the interplay between Jesus and God should be evaluated based on the robustness of the supporting evidence.

Conclusion

The critique reveals several areas where the content’s logical coherence could be improved. By avoiding ambiguity, addressing cognitive biases, substantiating claims, and advocating for empirical testing of promises, the arguments presented would be more robust and credible. It is essential to ensure that one’s degree of belief aligns with the available evidence to maintain intellectual integrity.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.